Bombay High Court
Ranjana Nitin Wadile vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 May, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:9356-DB
1 Cri. W.P./ 830 / 2024 (Ranjana Nitin Wadile)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 830 OF 2024
Ranjana Nitin Wadile and another .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Joslyn Anthony Menezes
APP for the respondent - State : Mr. G.A. Kulkarni
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 01 MAY 2024 (In Chamber)
ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
This is an obvious attempt to somehow manipulate the
system and circumvent the rules for soliciting an order. The petitioners
are seeking emergency parole under the Prisons (Bombay Furlough
and Parole) Rules, 1959 ("Prisons Rules") for petitioner no. 2 who is
lodged in Nasik Central Prison.
2. The matter has been moved before us on a holiday on the
ground that mother of petitioner no. 2 has died at Dondaicha, Taluka -
Sindkheda, District - Dhule. It is averred that the petitioners could not
get any legal assistance at Mumbai to file a petition before the Principal
Seat.
2 Cri. W.P./ 830 / 2024 (Ranjana Nitin Wadile)
3. In spite of the fact that admittedly the Court which has
convicted the petitioner no. 2 i.e. District and Sessions Court Mangaon,
is under the jurisdiction of the Principal Seat and he is lodged in the
Central Prison at Nasik and still instead of moving this petition before
the Principal Seat, the petitioners have been bold enough to file it here
under the pretext that it is an emergency and the death has occurred
within the jurisdiction of this bench. This is clearly in breach of Chapter
XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, which
does not admit of any exception.
4. In our considered view, this is an abuse of the process of
law. Entertaining such a petition by this bench would be gross
impropriety.
5. The learned advocate Mr. Menezes would advert our
attention to the full bench judgment of this Court dated 25 January
2021 in the matter of The State of Maharashtra Through,
Superintendent, Nashik Central Prison, Nashik Vs. Guddu @
(Criminal Application No. 2073 of 2020 in Criminal Writ Petition
No. 1362 of 2020) and particularly he read out to us paragraph no. 15
of it. He would submit that place of convicting court is inconsequential
in the matter of parole and there is reference even to the place where
the emergency occurs.
3 Cri. W.P./ 830 / 2024 (Ranjana Nitin Wadile)
6. Paragraph no. 15 of the judgment reads as under:-
"15. We may have to examine the aspect as to whether there
is any nexus between conviction by trial court in a district and
grant or refusal of parole. In this respect, it would be seen that
conviction of a person for an offence committed has different
considerations, is an absolutely different context and
dominion. Whereas, parole, as can be seen from the rules,
would be occasioned on the specific reasons as have been
enumerated under the Parole Rules, viz: death or marriage of
close relatives or pandemic, illness, delivery of child, natural
calamity etc. and would be circumscribed by the eligibility
criteria referred to thereunder. It appears that there is seldom
any nexus between a conviction and a parole. Place of court
convicting has no significance and does not appear to play
any role in the matter of granting or refusal of parole."
Purport of the observations can be correctly understood in the context
of the other observations and the ultimate decision.
7. Suffice for the purpose to observe that the issue that was
referred to the Full bench and the observations in paragraph no. 24,
were as under :-
" Whether, a convict/prisoner can challenge the rejection of
his parole application, only before the Forum of this Court
having jurisdiction over the district in which the rejection
order was passed and is precluded from approaching the
bench having jurisdiction over the district in which the Trial
Court convicting him/her is situated? "
...
"24. Foregoing discussion leads us to consider that while
there does not appear to be any nexus between grant or
refusal of parole and place of court convicting, ordinarily a
prisoner/convict would have to approach a forum of this
court having jurisdiction over the district in which order of
rejection is passed. But a convict/prisoner is not precluded
from approaching the bench having jurisdiction over the
district in which trial court has convicted him, if the order of
rejection of parole is passed in the area of jurisdiction of
4 Cri. W.P./ 830 / 2024 (Ranjana Nitin Wadile)
forum whereunder conviction has taken place or if a nexus
between refusal to grant parole and conviction could
reasonably and validly be said to exist. However, in the
latter case, it could always be open in rare and exceptional
cases for the Bench before which the proceeding is
presented to examine the plea at the threshold and decide
whether to receive the proceedings or not."
8. While answering this issue, the afore-mentioned
observations were made to demonstrate that the place of Court
convicting the accused is irrelevant to determine the bench of the High
Court in which the petition/s should be filed in the light of Chapter XXXI
of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 in respect of
challenge to the order refusing to grant parole.
9. It must be borne in mind that parole being a right which
accrues to a prisoner while he is lodged in a prison, the jurisdiction of
the bench under Chapter XXXI would depend upon the location of the
prison and not the place of the Court convicting the accused.
10. The inference being sought to be drawn by the learned
advocate by referring to the above mentioned paragraph is clearly
fallacious and out of contest. In the matter in hand, neither the prisoner
nor even the Court which convicted the petitioner no. 2 situate within
the territorial jurisdiction of this bench as circumscribed by Chapter
XXXI of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules. The submission
of the learned advocate is not sustainable in law and is emphatically
refuted.
5 Cri. W.P./ 830 / 2024 (Ranjana Nitin Wadile)
11. The Petition is dismissed.
12. Needless to state that it would always be open for the
petitioners to prefer a petition at the Principal Seat.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
